We should support spiritual and religious anarchists. It's at best culturally insensitive, and at worst outright imperialist, to deny people their religious/spiritual outlooks especially when those outlooks support liberation.

You will get nowhere telling religious/spiritual people to deny something so close to their identity.

I'm surprised this is still in "debate" with people around here. Liberation theology is a big thing for people in Latin America. It would be hilariously hypocritical as an anarchist to deny someone their individual outlook when it's not harmful to others.

The whole point of the demon was to teach the player that running away and coming back to kill something when you're stronger is going to be a required tactic - it wasn't meant to showcase how "hardcore" it was.

If someone is transitioning their body with hormone therapy because they would feel more comfortable in a different body and expressing a different gender then they are trans. No cis person would do that because then they would likely have dysphoria. The way one's body looks is so much more than cosmetics - your body determines your lived external and, therefore, internal experiences. It is wholly disingenuous to call it a cosmetic change; a term that, in fact, the trans community is fighting against when discussing Gender Affirmation Surgery for that exact reason.

As per your 4th paragraph, if your anxious about something like that then don't take out that anxiety on people who are doing what they want to do with their bodies to be comfortable. Direct your anger towards the people and institutions that hold the power to our livelihood and their fickle policies that continue to gatekeep and deny us our happiness. Bigots will always find a reason to hate on something they don't understand; It is not our fault nor anyone else who is marginalized. To take out anxiety on how bigots will react to marginalized people just legitimizes and echos the bigots opinions of them.

I empathize with this sub feeling off-puttingly hyper-sexual, especially with all the references to wanting to feel like an ~anime cat woman~, but again I want to reiterate that many people here are finally becoming comfortable with their body. It would make sense to finally feel sexy as a person when your body gets to matching what you've felt for so long, hence why trans-women may feel its sexy just to be a woman (and I'm sure the general sexualization of women's body that society does pushes this reaction).

I've honestly never ran into anyone who took hormones for a fetish (edit: so I guess I can't really say much about that). There are trans people who don't experience dysphoria but know they'd be more comfortable with themselves in a different looking body who take hormones, but it's wholly gatekeeping to act like they aren't trans just because they're lucky enough to not feel the same pain as we do with our bodies.

A lot of trans people grow up sexually dissatisfied or otherwise experience intense dysphoria during sex that blunts their emotional and physical enjoyment of it. When someone figures out they're trans, I don't think it should be a surprise that they fall into a hyper-sexual, kink based lifestyle they can finally enjoy, especially if that's something they've wanted to do for so long and were denied that enjoyment. Plus, hormones really spikes up the sex drive for some trans people.

I feel you're making the assumption that they transition largely for the sexual nature of it, rather than recognizing how transitioning and the (general openness/experimental culture of queer people) affects the sexual nature of trans people.

I'm a lesbian and Ive been with non-op transwomen and dated other lesbians who are into my body like a ciswomans. A lot of lesbians probably wouldnt date a non op trans man because they're a man. Being lesbian doesn't always mean one is just attracted to a vagina.

It's not transphobic to not prefer dick. It's transphobic however to write off trans people overall, and to discuss transwomen as if they're all masculine or have a penis, which is often what happens. And again, preference doesn't excuse the shitty discussions surrounding our bodies that cis people feel entitled to discussing in a public forum.

Did you read my comments or are you just cherry picking to start some shit? I stated people can have preferences. I don't prefer dick myself (but that doesn't mean I immediately write off anyone who has one). But preferences don't excuse people talking shit about trans bodies everytime we come up, or othering us by asking cis peoples opinions on if they'd fuck us in a public forum.

Not everyone with a preference is transphobic but it's wholly disingenuous to act like a lot of it isn't.

I'm not attempting to legislate someone else's heart. I'm stating why threads like those are ridiculous and harmful to the people they are talking about.

Just as people don't date PoC because they're racist, people won't date trans people because of trans phobia, subconscious or not. Again, people have preferences and that's okay, but threads like those are wholly unnecessary.

People often hide transphobia under the guise of preference. That is not to say everyone does, because everyone has preferences, but discussions revolving around "would you date a trans woman" are often just blatant attacks.

But those threads are hilariously othering and feed into our marginalization. Being told our genitals or transness is "icky" doesn't help dysphoria at all. You'd almost never see a trans forun asking "would you date a cis woman" and complaining/boasting about why they wouldn't. The closest to that we get is discussing if we'd date cis people, which often revolves around shared oppression and the constant explaining v.s. the aforementioned where are bodies are othered and discussed as if we're just objects.

I have to echo this sentiment. Wolfenstein is a good game by modern FPS standards - keeping it contemporary yet bringing back old school flair - but I hate that it was constantly compared to Doom and made to be genius.

It's nothing like Doom game play, and in fact attempting to play it like Doom will get you killed. It's game play reminds me of ps2/early ps3 Era shooters. All of which is fine and refreshing, but when constantly referenced as amazing and comparable to Doom made it feel wholly underwhelming based off those expectations, and largely why I couldn't even bother to finish it.

Obviously anyone can love a good game despite what character is present. But the overwhelmingly white, male, cishetero, abled centric industry not only makes it feel exclusive, but cuts down on a lot of the stories that could be there. There's so much games can do to express the stories of those with marginalized livelihoods that they wouldn't be able to do with the current trend of the aforementioned character type. Plus, everyone deserves to see themselves in other media.

Privelage comes from structural problems that then affect the individual. Black Americans not receiving housing loans, being less likely for their resume to be taken seriously because of their name, aggressions from racist people working against their mental wellness, policies put forth to defund """urban""" schools.... These are societal problems that, in turn, make it easier for white people.

This is why, as a whole, in your words, "white people are better off." Privelage is literally a way to explain why that is. There's no division nor accusation in acknowledging that.

And like I implied in my previous comment, privilege does not discount the individual. It merely states that there are parts with being white that can make things easier. It doesn't mean it always does nor always will. It doesn't mean that a white dude growing up in the poor south will have it easier than a black man born into richness (that's the whole point of class intersection with "identity politics," something liberals often forget). It just means that there things that people of color deal with that white people don't, and the things they deal with, from the structural to the individual, can disadvantage them.

That's not what was said. It is an indisputable fact that being white grants certain privileges. It does not mean every white person is doing well, nor does it mean every white person could do well. It just means that society has been constructed to favor white people. In the same exact situation, a white person is going to have an easier time than a black person. That doesn't mean its much easier, nor does that discount how hard people, white or not, have it in society. It means that, for instance, I'm less likely to get shot by a kkk member who is a cop than a black person.